It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Creationism Should Never be Taught in Science Class

page: 4
42
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I didn't notice it, but I did now. Lol

That poster is wrong. He is framing the argument like a debate actually exists. The only people who believe a debate even exists are the Creationists who have created the debate out of thin air. Like I said in the OP, you can't call it science if you can't even present a unified idea of what it says among all its proponents. After all, how can you teach a standardized version of it for all parties then?




posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Uh... yeah... Or do you prefer living in a country where women can't vote, black people can't use the same facilities as white people, gay people "don't exist", etc


See what I mean, you can't even make up you're mind if we're speaking scientifically,
socially or politically.

We're Dooooomed!



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Uh... yeah... Or do you prefer living in a country where women can't vote, black people can't use the same facilities as white people, gay people "don't exist", etc


See what I mean, you can't even make up you're mind if we're speaking scientifically,
socially or politically.


I have made up my mind, you just weren't very clear with your question so I choose a topic for you.


We're Dooooomed!




But yes we are all doomed. No one lives forever



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: randyvs

Can you offer anything up that would support Biblical creationism?


Of course, but your question falls short of what you should really be asking me.

Doesn't it Beer?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Alright shot then you have the reigns. Try not to fall off the horse.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
Ha, ha.....yea....I see a pattern alright. And that pattern really kinda makes me wonder....why in the world do you care what they teach in Louisiana? I mean....I don't intend to get ugly about this, and I've lived in Louisiana and its home to many sweet and wonderful folk who cook really well and know how to party, but.......for the average person in Louisiana, (read between the lines here), the penultimate experience of success is to own your own fireworks stand, a good boat and a Chevy El Camino. Why would anyone care what they teach in the schools? And the news gets better.....most NEVER leave Louisiana. So assuming your a "Coastie", you don't have to worry about them visiting your area and polluting minds with their beliefs.

Put another way.....you might really find a better use for your efforts, work and worry than contemplating what they teach in Louisiana.


This is one of the worst arguments I've ever seen. First you asked "who would teach it?" as if you didn't believe it, and talked about the poor education system. Now you ask "who cares"?

Really? Who cares what the children are being taught??

I do, for one.

The children are the future, whether they are children of LA, Texas, California or New Jersey. They grow up to become law makers, federal employees, state government workers, politicians, police officers, educators, school board directors etc. I think our children's education is EXTREMELY important, and anybody who downplays that shouldn't have children. Sorry if I'm not apathetic toward the future of our children and their intelligence, and hence the future of this country. No, I do not want children taught faith as fact, you know, because IT'S NOT FACT and that very same school of thought is what creates extremists and religious theocracies. The United states is not a theocracy.

Who cares is not an argument, it's something a kid says when he hears something he doesn't like. Obviously we all care or we wouldn't be posting here.
edit on 6-7-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Alright, go tell the politicians in DC that I'm in charge now.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Well you certainly haven't put forth a valid rebuttal to anything in this thread yet, just working with what you are giving me. When you and borntowatch can settle on a universal account of Creationism that all Christians can agree to, let me know.



Ya, okay shot, get right on that one. Here's a Krazyshot for ya.
The ideas you and you're little sewing circle of science vie
for.
Are going to leave you holding a bag full of evidence, when all is
said and done. I don't mean that threateningly. But what you're
asking, you're going to get. But you should be mindful when you've
made yourselves the only game in town. You think this country,
this world, is better off today than it was yesterday? You think
you're going to make it better tomorrow than it is today?
Well put down the yarn and get on with you're bad selves.

Personally, I have no faith in you. I think you'll blow it all to hell.
But I can't stop you, so have at it. Take us to where you want us
to go.

Wear those daddy pants.


I don't think I've read any more childish, immature comments from one individual in on topic before. I find it humorous that you're trying to prove a point that a serious topic is false by acting like you just dropped your lollipop and started throwing around living room furniture as if that makes your position stronger.

Care to be logical for once and actually debate? Or are you intrinsically a mindless troll?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Edwards v Aguillard and Epperson v Arkansas decisions both found that creationism and evolution could be taught as a means to educate students in both curricula, allowing young minds to draw their own conclusions. If evolution is so overwhelmingly based in indisputable fact, and creationism(scoffed by many posters in this thread) is biblical-based and lacking in science, evolution will rule the day.

After reading all the posts in this thread, it seems the dismissive context and utter disdain for opinions differing from some posters is not worthy of discussion, let alone consideration of both in a teachable format. Personally, one of the most memorable HS classes I had was one that spent a semester studying the world's religion, and how they effect society. It opened my eyes to the dogma followed by others, and punctuated my ignorance toward my fellow man. Purely from an educational viewpoint, should we poo-pooh the teaching of both?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

By all means, provide your evidence please.

What should I really be asking?

If your only evidence for Biblical creationism is faith, that's fine. I'd think you haven't set the bar high enough, but I won't mock you for it.

I am just extremely curious what biblical creationists consider evidence in their favor. Because all I typically see are creationists denying various sciences. As if discrediting evolution proves creationism or something.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


99% of these fundamentalist Christians would be outraged if another religion was taught as science (ie Islam, Hinduism), yet hypocritically advocate for theirs to be taught as an alternative to science just because they have strong faith. They would also be outraged if science was taught in religious classes as an alternative to religion. They just believe their view is true, and have zero empathy so they can't understand how anybody could NOT believe in an ancient story book.

Exactly. They don't just want creationism taught. They want Christian creationism taught. No equal time for the Sumerian story of creation, and/or other cultures. Only Christian. Of course, then we're back to the OP. Which version of Christian creation?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

Um... Edwards v. Aguillard found that teaching Creationism alongside Evolution was NOT ok. It said that you can teach multiple creation theories as long as there is a secular intent though.


Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a legal case about the teaching of creationism that was heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools, along with evolution, was unconstitutional because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. It also held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."


Epperson v. Arkansas stated that banning teaching Evolution in school was unconstitutional. As a result, that is when states adopted the legislation to teach Creationism alongside Evolution, which resulted in the Epperson v. Arkansas ruling above.

Both of those ruling are defeats for Creationists, not for furthering teaching the debate in school and letting the kids decide.

Besides that, you are ignoring the premise of the thread, Creationism cannot be PRESENTED as science, because there is no unified idea of what Creationism even IS. There is nothing wrong with taking a class on religious history like you did, but teaching both Creationism and Evolution side by side in science is NOT how you do it. When you do that, you are just validating religious beliefs as science, and that is insulting to the scientific method since those beliefs were NEVER obtained using the scientific method.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

Again, faith is not fact. There is no science whatsoever behind creationism. THAT is why it should not be taught as science. It's not about differing opinions, it's about teaching science in science class and religion in religion class. Pretty straight forward but you guys just keep clouding the issue as if creationism has evidence. If you believe it does, then provide this scientific evidence and I will happily advocate for it to be taught in science class. Simple right?

Sorry but it's not even a debate where kids can make up their own minds. There is one side backed by science, and one side back by nothing but religious dogma and myth. I guess you feel kids should make up their own minds as well when it comes to flat earth and gravity right? Should they present alternatives to all science that is taught, despite having no evidence? I guess we'll be seeing hollow earth being taught in the next class about gravity.
edit on 6-7-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo


If evolution is so overwhelmingly based in indisputable fact, and creationism(scoffed by many posters in this thread) is biblical-based and lacking in science, evolution will rule the day.

This isn't really true though, is it? Depending on the beliefs, or lack thereof, the teacher holds. The emphasis gets put on whichever he/she favors.


Personally, one of the most memorable HS classes I had was one that spent a semester studying the world's religion, and how they effect society.

Teaching world religion wouldn't be a problem so much, because the focus isn't on one religion over another(again, depending on the teacher).


edit on 7/6/2015 by Klassified because: edit



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
But see, that isn't proof that the discipline isn't scientific, but more that our understanding of the broad concepts that make it up aren't fully fleshed out yet. They used to believe that blowing tobacco smoke up someone's ass was a good means to resuscitate a drowning victim (no joke), but that doesn't mean that medicine wasn't a real science in the 18th and 19th centuries.


I'm not so sure about that. To be considered scientifically rigorous psychology would need clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability. In some studies it does have all 5 of these valuables, but in general it lacks some, if not many. I have no doubts that eventually it will progress to a stage where we can possess all 5 of these traits, but at the moment, I'm not so sure.

There just isn't any clear-cut way to scale specific things, like emotion. Take 'Happiness' for example. We can't really define it in it totally, nor do we have a reasonable scale to measure it. We may be able to measure specific chemical releases in the brain, but then that kind of sifts away from Psychology and enters into the realms of Neurology/Biology/Chemistry.

The same issues arise in many (but not all) of psychological phenomenon. Psychology is more of a subject area, where you can study it scientifically, but can also study it non-scientifically. Psychology, in many ways is qualitative research. Here's a good example:

Perhaps I want to find out what leads victims of serious domestic violence to drop a prosecution despite the abuser already being safely in jail, pending trial.

I could come up with a list of motivations I think might be plausible and then find a way of testing whether they are present, but essentially, no matter how rigorous my methods, the study still depends on what I think is plausible to begin with.
(Source)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147
I'm not so sure psychology will ever be considered a true science. There are far too many variables, when it comes to the human psyche. I think it will always be an art form, more so than a science. Thankfully, we have some pretty damn good artists out there in the field.

edit on 7/6/2015 by Klassified because: spelling and grammar. Imagine that.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

You are right--faith is not fact. My position is that the basics of creationism could be presented to students, and allow a discussion of the truths of the known(evolution), and the suppositions of the other. "You guys" is a label you affixed to my post, as if I fully endorse creationism over evolution. The backlash over my post underlines the lack of objectivity and lack of faith in young minds to separate the wheat from the chaff.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo
Edwards v Aguillard and Epperson v Arkansas decisions both found that creationism and evolution could be taught as a means to educate students in both curricula, allowing young minds to draw their own conclusions. If evolution is so overwhelmingly based in indisputable fact, and creationism(scoffed by many posters in this thread) is biblical-based and lacking in science, evolution will rule the day.


Except that's not how things work. When you put ridiculous claims on the same level as totally reasonable ones and say "here you go, now you have options!" it is just a waste of time.

As stated before, Creationism isn't a single, uniform concept. What about Last Thursdayism? It's also a creation theory in which everything began last Thursday and everything was made in a way that is aged or with memories in place, but really, there was nothing before that.

Do you honestly think we should add Last Thursdayism to the list of options to choose from? I would hope you would say "no" to that. Why? because it has absolutely no evidence for it, is unfalsifiable, therefore not scientific, and thus shouldn't be treated as if it was scientific. Just like creationism.


originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo
Personally, one of the most memorable HS classes I had was one that spent a semester studying the world's religion, and how they effect society. It opened my eyes to the dogma followed by others, and punctuated my ignorance toward my fellow man. Purely from an educational viewpoint, should we poo-pooh the teaching of both?


That's fantastic, but the study of the effects of religion on society is not a scientific field. We're not saying "Leave the topic of religion out of our public schools!" we're saying "Leave it out of Science class because it isn't science"



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

You should make a thread on this, it appears we could have a deep conversation. In this thread it is only tangentially linked to the topic at hand though.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo
Edwards v Aguillard and Epperson v Arkansas decisions both found that creationism and evolution could be taught as a means to educate students in both curricula, allowing young minds to draw their own conclusions.


Neither of those SCOTUS rulings had anything to do with teaching creationism and evolution side by side. In fact, the opposite opinion was reached by the court.

From Edwards v. Aguillard-

The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools, along with evolution, was unconstitutional because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion.


And from Epperson v. Arkansas-

Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in the public schools. The Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from requiring, in the words of the majority opinion, "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma." The Supreme Court declared the Arkansas statute unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. After this decision, some jurisdictions passed laws that required the teaching of creation science alongside evolution when evolution was taught. These were also ruled unconstitutional by the Court in the 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard.




If evolution is so overwhelmingly based in indisputable fact, and creationism(scoffed by many posters in this thread) is biblical-based and lacking in science, evolution will rule the day.

That's like saying that if mathematics says 2+2=4 and my daughter counts it out to a sum of 5 then let's let them work it out on their own. No... in a schools science class, we teach the facts as they are presented. Creationism just doesn't meet that standard.


Personally, one of the most memorable HS classes I had was one that spent a semester studying the world's religion, and how they effect society. It opened my eyes to the dogma followed by others, and punctuated my ignorance toward my fellow man.


But they weren't teaching you about other religions etc... as a viable alternative to proven science were they? or were they simply teaching you about various world religions throughout history and giving an overview all around? Even when I was in Catholic School, they completely separated the religion class from science. There was no religion brought into the science class at all. If Catholic schools can grasp that, why can't bible belt fundamentalists?


Purely from an educational viewpoint, should we poo-pooh the teaching of both?


Teach them both as alternative theories based on facts? yes...we should most definitely poo-poo that. Religion is a very personal thing that should be the providence of your family and church life. Even various Christian sects can not agree on how they perceive the world, how many varieties of creationism are supposed to be taught? What is the standard to be set when there isn't a consensus amongst Christians, let alone all of the other faiths represented in public school systems. With regard to evolutionary theory, there aren't a multitude of varieties to choose from, here is the data, here is where and how we found it, here is how we interpreted it as such and why we did so. You can't get that with religion, and let's be honest, this is strictly conservative Christian creationism, no Hindu creation, no Aztec or Maya creation myths, no native American creation stories would be included...and the SCOTUS cases you cited point out these issues.




top topics



 
42
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join